Related Articles

“The failure to prosecute now exposes the holes in the safeguards in The Abortion Act 1967.”

Official figures show that there have been only a handful of prosecutions over the past decade for abortion related offences.

Mr Burrowes said: “The decision confirms long held suspicions that the safeguards are routinely ignored or manipulated to allow the abhorrent practice of gender selection abortions and other discrimination against the unborn child.

“It is becoming increasingly clear that the Abortion Act is allowing for abortion on demand and is not fit for purpose.”

Mr Burrowes said that Wednesday’s debate will give Mr Grieve “the opportunity to clarify the policy on prosecution of offences contravening The Abortion Act 1967.

“I expect the Attorney General to affirm the illegality of gender selection abortions and the general public interest of prosecution such offences.”

Mr Burrowes also set out a number of questions that he wants answered, including whether Mr Grieve was consulted on the decision.

He also asks whether Mr Grieve will order a review to consider whether safeguards set down by Parliament have been properly applied and have force in law.

Two doctors were exposed by an undercover Daily Telegraph investigation offering to abort babies because of their gender.

The Telegraph’s probe prompted a 19 month investigation. However prosecutors told the doctors that they will not be charged even though there was enough evidence, because it did not consider the issue to be in the public interest.

Mr Starmer has not commented on his reasons not to prosecute and is due to issue his reasons in the coming days, before he stands down as DPP at the end of this month.

The CPS said the key reason for the decision was that the doctors would still be investigated by the General Medical Council.

Mr Starmer was criticised by his predecessor as DPP Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who said the decision had been “very dubious”.

Lord Macdonald said this amounted to letting them “avoid criminal action” because of their professional status - undermining the basic principle that “everyone is equal under the law”.

The two doctors, Dr Prabha Sivaraman and Dr Palaniappan Rajmohan, have had restrictions placed on their work while they are investigated by the GMC.

Niall Dickson, the GMC’s chief executive of the General Medical Council, said: “These are serious allegations, which is why both of the doctors concerned have had restrictions placed on their practice while investigations take place.”

A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: “As the DPP has made clear, he will shortly be publishing much fuller reasons for the decision not to prosecute two doctors for attempting to procure an abortion.

"Those reasons will set out in detail the basis of the decision, making it clear that this was not a simple case of gender-specific abortion. Any issue raised about the legislation itself would, of course, be a matter for parliament.”

A spokesman for the Attorney General added: "The DPP has made clear that the decision not to prosecute in these cases was not based on a policy, but on the individual circumstances of the cases.

"The Director will very shortly publish his detailed reasoning which will set out the factors considered in coming to a decision. It would not be appropriate to comment further prior to those reasons being published."